Bias: A gay activist opens fire in a conservative organization's offices, inspired by the steady drumbeat of leftist vitriol against those who value traditional marriage, and no one says a word.

You won't hear any call for civil discourse from President Obama's bully pulpit over the shooting and wounding of a security guard at the offices of the conservative Family Research Council (FRC) in Washington, D.C.

The alleged shooter was a volunteer at a community center for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, and the FRC favors traditional marriage.

Those who blamed Sarah Palin for the shooting of Congresswoman Gabriel Giffords or Rush Limbaugh for the Oklahoma City bombing are strangely silent.

At least the likes of ABC's Brian Ross didn't reflexively blame the Tea Party, as he did after a gunman shot up an Aurora, Colo., movie theater.

On Tuesday, the Human Rights Campaign put on its blog a piece titled, "Paul Ryan Speaking at Hate Group's Annual Conference," referring to the FRC.

It said that the "FRC has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. It's a group that has advocated for the criminalization of homosexuality, called for LGBT people to be exported from the U.S., and has pushed dangerous lies trying to link being gay to pedophilia."

The FRC has done none of those things but that didn't stop the Daily Kos from vilifying the FRC for its support of Chick-fil-A: "Chick-fil-A's corporate 'charity' arm WinShape has donated millions of dollars to groups like Family Research Council. FRC doesn't just oppose marriage equality, they really do HATE gays."

Notice how those who hate apply the word so frequently to those who don't.

It took CNN two hours and 45 minutes before mentioning the shooting at the advocacy group's office 1.1 miles from the CNN D.C. bureau. On the NBC Nightly News, Brian Williams gave the story just 17 seconds, identifying FRC as a "conservative group" but not mentioning the affiliations and motive of the shooter.

Well, Peter Spriggs who holds an executive position with the group has:

SPRIGG: I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the sodomy laws in this country, was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.

Started as a small think tank in 1983, the Family Research Council (FRC) merged in 1988 with the much larger religious-right group Focus on the Family in 1988, and brought on Gary Bauer, former U.S. undersecretary of education under Ronald Reagan, as president. In 1992, the two groups legally separated to protect Focus on the Family’s tax-exempt status, although Focus founder James Dobson and two other Focus officials were placed on the FRC’s newly independent board. By that time, FRC had become a powerful group on its own.

Headed since 2003 by former Louisiana State Rep. Tony Perkins, the FRC has been a font of anti-gay propaganda throughout its history. It relies on the work of Robert Knight, who also worked at Concerned Women for America but now is at Coral Ridge Ministries (see above for both), along with that of FRC senior research fellows Tim Dailey (hired in 1999) and Peter Sprigg (2001). Both Dailey and Sprigg have pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia: Sprigg has written that most men who engage in same-sex child molestation “identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual,” and Dailey and Sprigg devoted an entire chapter of their 2004 book Getting It Straight to similar material. The men claimed that “homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses” and similarly asserted that “homosexuals are attracted in inordinate numbers to boys.”

That’s the least of it. In a 1999 publication (Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys) that has since disappeared from its website, the FRC claimed that “one of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order,” according to unrefuted research by AMERICAblog. The same publication argued that “homosexual activists publicly disassociate themselves from pedophiles as part of a public relations strategy.” FRC offered no evidence for these remarkable assertions, and has never publicly retracted the allegations. (The American Psychological Association, among others, has concluded that “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.&rdquo

In fact, in a Nov. 30, 2010, debate on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews” between Perkins and the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Mark Potok, Perkins defended FRC’s association of gay men with pedophilia, saying: “If you look at the American College of Pediatricians, they say the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a danger to children. So Mark is wrong. He needs to go back and do his own research.” In fact, the college, despite its hifalutin name, is a tiny, explicitly religious-right breakaway group from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the 60,000-member association of the profession. Publications of the American College of Pediatricians, which has some 200 members, have been roundly attacked by leading scientific authorities who say they are baseless and accuse the college of distorting and misrepresenting their work.

Elsewhere, according to AMERICAblog, Knight, while working at the FRC, claimed that “[t]here is a strong current of pedophilia in the homosexual subculture. … [T]hey want to promote a promiscuous society.” AMERICAblog also reported that then-FRC official Yvette Cantu, in an interview published on Americans for Truth About Homosexuality’s website, said, “If they [gays and lesbians] had children, what would happen when they were too busy having their sex parties?”

More recently, in March 2008, Sprigg, responding to a question about uniting gay partners during the immigration process, said: “I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them.” He later apologized, but then went on, last February, to tell MSNBC host Chris Matthews, “I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions on homosexual behavior.” “So we should outlaw gay behavior?” Matthews asked. “Yes,” Sprigg replied. At around the same time, Sprigg claimed that allowing gay people to serve openly in the military would lead to an increase in gay-on-straight sexual assaults.

Perkins has his own unusual history. In 1996, while managing the U.S. Senate campaign of Republican State Rep. Louis “Woody” Jenkins of Louisiana, Perkins paid $82,500 to use the mailing list of former Klan chieftain David Duke. The campaign was fined $3,000 (reduced from $82,500) after Perkins and Jenkins filed false disclosure forms in a bid to hide the link to Duke. Five years later, on May 17, 2001, Perkins gave a speech to the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), a white supremacist group that has described black people as a “retrograde species of humanity.” Perkins claimed not to know the group’s ideology at the time, but it had been widely publicized in Louisiana and the nation. In 1999, after Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott was embroiled in a national scandal over his ties to the group, GOP chairman Jim Nicholson urged Republicans to quit the CCC because of its “racist views.” That statement and the nationally publicized Lott controversy came two years before Perkins’ 2001 speech.

Originally posted by no1marauder"The FRC has done none of those things"

Well, Peter Spriggs who holds an executive position with the group has:

SPRIGG: I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the sodomy laws in this country, was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.

What does this have to with the OP ?
Are you condoning a attempted mass murder hate crime by a left wing radical ?
Are you you saying this is a non-story and just another "non-fatal shooting" that should have gotten very little coverage by the lame stream media, as it has ?

Originally posted by utherpendragonWhat does this have to with the OP ?
Are you condoning a attempted mass murder hate crime by a left wing radical ?
Are you you saying this is a non-story and just another "non-fatal shooting" that should have gotten very little coverage by the lame stream media, as it has ?

Originally posted by utherpendragonWhat does this have to with the OP ?
Are you condoning a attempted mass murder hate crime by a left wing radical ?
Are you you saying this is a non-story and just another "non-fatal shooting" that should have gotten very little coverage by the lame stream media, as it has ?

In your OP you claim that "[The FRC has not] advocated for the criminalization of homosexuality, called for LGBT people to be exported from the U.S., and has pushed dangerous lies trying to link being gay to pedophilia." Wheareas if no1's link is to be believed, it would seem that prominent figures in the FRC indeed held or hold these views. I guess that's what it has to do with the OP.

Of course unprovoked violence is never justified, I don't think anyone would make that claim.

Originally posted by KazetNagorraIn your OP you claim that "[The FRC has not] advocated for the criminalization of homosexuality, called for LGBT people to be exported from the U.S., and has pushed dangerous lies trying to link being gay to pedophilia." Wheareas if no1's link is to be believed, it would seem that prominent figures in the FRC indeed held or hold these views. I guess th ...[text shortened]... course unprovoked violence is never justified, I don't think anyone would make that claim.

The topic is not the Family Research Council (FRC) .
A new thread has been started about that, you can go there if you want to talk about their values or lack thereof.
The topic is about the left wing radical who planned a mass murder at the FRC with 50 rounds of ammo,15 Chick-fil-A bags and the lame stream media giving it very little attention.
As well as, did left wing hate rhetoric inspire this ?

Originally posted by utherpendragonThe topic is about the left wing radical who planned a mass murder at the FRC with 50 rounds of ammo,15 Chick-fil-A bags and the lame stream media giving it very little attention.

But the media did cover it, didn't it? And has covered it, right? Do you have an objective definition of "very little attention" that could be used by people contributing to this discussion?

Originally posted by utherpendragon[b]Bias: A gay activist opens fire in a conservative organization's offices, inspired by the steady drumbeat of leftist vitriol against those who value traditional marriage, and no one says a word.

You won't hear any call for civil discourse from President Obama's bully pulpit over the shooting and wounding of a security guard at the offices o ...[text shortened]... of his yelling about his opposition to FRC policies during the attack.[/b]

If you're doing a cut and paste, it's honest to give the link: http://news.investors.com/article/622543/201208161902/frc-council-shooter-inspired-by-liberal-hate-groups.htm

It should be also pointed out that there is zero evidence that the shooter, Floyd Lee Corkins II is a "gay activist" (he did volunteer at an LGBT outreach center but that doesn't necessarily mean you are A) gay or B) an activist) nor that he was "inspired" by vitriol "against those who value traditional marriage" (most people do value traditional marriage). Naturally, the "no one says a word" is a hysterical exaggeration.

That's quite a few distortions, falsehoods and jumping to conclusions without evidence and that's just the first sentence of your C & P.

Originally posted by utherpendragonThe topic is not the Family Research Council (FRC) .
A new thread has been started about that, you can go there if you want to talk about their values or lack thereof.
The topic is about the left wing radical who planned a mass murder at the FRC with 50 rounds of ammo,15 Chick-fil-A bags and the lame stream media giving it very little attention.
As well as, did left wing hate rhetoric inspire this ?